3 ms·
If a country's constitution has the possibility of being interpreted in such a way that non-citizens outside its borders are entitled to zero protections, then
by dane-pgp 5y ago
If a country's constitution has the possibility of being interpreted in such a way that non-citizens outside its borders are entitled to zero protections, then that option should be rejected under a generalised version of what has been called "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation":
"in case there are two plausible interpretations of the text of a human rights treaty, one should favour that interpretation under which Auschwitz would be considered a human rights violation."
https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-rights-part-2-interpreting-the-iccpr/ https://www.ejiltalk.org/foreign-surveillance-and-human-righ...
- curryst 5y agoI disagree with using "the Auschwitz rule of interpretation". The first reason is that it's the rhetorical equivalent of comparing someone to a Nazi. It immediately escalates the discussion to a comparison with one of the worst things humanity has done. The second is that it is either pointless, or creates a mess of international affairs. It disregards national sovereignty, so either we're going to do something about it every time another nation encroaches on what we consider natural rights (probably meaning war), or we're not going to do anything about it in which case it was a pointless exercise. Your text actually says "treaty" though, which implies an international context. It makes more sense in that context because national sovereignty still exists.